Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium, substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore believe that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease in which the bones weaken significantly with age and that is linked to both environmental and genetic factors. But a long-term study of a large number of people has found that those who have consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years of the study have a higher rate of bone fractures than any other participants in the study. Since bone fractures are a symptom of osteoporosis, this study result shows that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of osteoporosis.
In this argument, the author draws the conclusion that a diet rich in dairy products may increase the risk of osteoporosis. In supporting his conclusion, the author presents a study, which shows that those who consume dairy products have a higher rate of bone fractures than others. While it might seem convincible at first glance, the argument is based on a series of unwarranted assumptions and thus fails to be wholly persuasive as it stands.
A paramount problem involved in this argument is that the author fails to consider other possible causes of bone fractures. Although bone fractures are a symptom of osteoporosis, it may also result from many alternative causes, such as falls or car accidents. In order to substantiate his argument, the author needs to provide evidence to prove that the participants in the study had bone fractures due to osteoporosis instead of other means.
On the other hand, the characteristics of the study’s population are questionable. We do not know their age, gender, and if they have medical problems. It is possible that these people consume more dairy products because they are at risk of developing osteoporosis in the first place. For example, an 80-year-old female unquestionably has a higher risk of osteoporosis compared to a 20-year-old male, no matter what kind of diet she is on. Without providing the evidence that this study involves randomized controlled trials that rule out other possibilities, the author’s assumption cannot be bolstered.
Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are reasonable, the author’s conclusion is based on the assumption that the participants of the study were on a dairy-rich diet for a long time. This is a very vague statement and can possibly result in many interpretations. For example, the participants reported that they “have consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years”, yet we do not know the quantity, form, and the type of products they consumed. In fact, it could turn out to be the case that some participants were not having enough dairy products for it to produce conducive effects, or the way they consume them does not get easily absorbed by the body (ex. having them with iron pills).
To sum up, there are, as I have presented, many obvious flaws that need to be addressed before the proposal can be seriously scrutinized. To strengthen the argument the author must prove that the study is not interfered by other factors and thus its conclusion is valid. In order to do that, the sample’s participants, characteristics, method of data collection and analysis all need to be carefully examined.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 429 350
No. of Characters: 2132 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.551 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.97 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.966 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.522 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.55 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 229, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'can'.
Suggestion: can
...ime. This is a very vague statement and can possibly result in many interpretations. For exa...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, may, so, then, thus, while, for example, in fact, kind of, such as, to sum up, in the first place, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2225.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 429.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18648018648 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55107846309 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16343898142 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522144522145 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.188281422 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.105263158 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5789473684 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.47368421053 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186201240631 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0568935182516 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642217275795 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104198524809 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0674479787316 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.